On 09/04/15 5:59 PM, Lukasz Marek wrote: > On 09.04.2015 13:50, Kieran Kunhya wrote: >> On 9 April 2015 at 12:17, Rodger Combs <rodger.co...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Agreed, this belongs in a higher layer. I think it'd be reasonable for >>> FFmpeg to have a higher-layer library handling things like playlists and >>> this, but that's another conversation. >> >> +1 > > So instead of complaining and spamming with "+1", prepare a patch and submit > it? Community will discuss it and do what's the best for the project (and > yes, project is not single person who has their wishes). Personally I woulnt > complain about that separation if done properly, but just don't see a reason > for it. Most of the stuff you don't need/like you can disable at compilation > level. > We have separation libavformat/libavdevice and most of patches I submitted > regarding libavdevice were complained by one person. > > Sometimes I have a feeling that ffmpeg is an open source project to feed > wm4's project. Everything he doesn't need is "retarded", "rotten", "dumb", > etc, etc. > > I don't want to be drama queen here, but the way author of this patch was > treated is bellow any level of dignity. FFmpeg has more to offer that show > how many douches is subscribed to the mailing list. > > Unless these things are handled don't treat me as member of this "community" > anymore.
I think you may be exaggerating a bit here. At least three people showed their disagreement about this patch, and while some strong words have been tossed around, none of them afaics were directed at people. Last thing we need is a flame war and drama out of a youtube demuxer implementation, so please, lets all calm down. _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
